There’s a series of links here tracing the recent evolution of the story.
I frankly don’t believe Popescu’s b.s. about the other account belonging to a relative. I used to work at an eBay like site for high end audio and a big part of my job was fighting fraudsters there. This was a common refrain from them when caught “Oh that account shares my IP address but it’s my sister not me.” Bullcrap.
Even if the relative story is true; it doesn’t make anything better. It’s his account and it is his fault who he links up with. If he didn’t want that responsibility then he should have let his relative pay for her own account.
I think the phrase “links up with” can be misleading or at least confusing. From everything I understand, there was no formal “linking” of accounts, but instead a number of ways in which the accounts implicitly shared traits (used the same credit card, etc) and thus the Apple fraud team determined they were linked.
Not notifying each account that they were going to terminate seems like a big oversight that could have made things turn out quite differently.
I totally agree, but thinking about it from Apple’s perspective, I can understand why they wouldn’t have contacted the primary account. It could have given away some of the signals they use for detecting ‘linked’ accounts which to my knowledge weren’t public before.
Marco Arment has also commented on the issue and the Twitter searches he points at do look suspicious. There’s also a good writeup on iMore.
Letting someone else register using your credit card/use your old hardware won’t result in apps in the App Store using your com.kapeli.* ID, surely?
It is quite possible share developer keys in this way, and not know that they are tied to the credit card. That is an interesting factoid.
It sort of seems like Popescu shot himself in the foot there. It would be
(relatively) easy to just admit that he allowed someone else to register
using his card and hardware, and that he wasn’t aware of what they were
doing since they were receiving the emails and not him. Basically,
apologize for what he did (which wasn’t really much at all) and allow the
relative to decide from there. It’s not admitting that he was responsible
for the fraud, just that he didn’t keep tabs on what the relative was doing
with “his” account. However this shakes out, it seems like Popescu will
have a stain on his record.
Actually, he admitted to sharing his CC:
What I’ve done: 3-4 years ago I helped a relative get started by paying for her Apple’s Developer Program Membership using my credit card. I also handed her test hardware that I no longer needed. From then on those accounts were linked in the eyes of Apple. Once that account was involved with review manipulation, my account was closed.
I don’t believe that the developer published that thinking it would get his app back on Apple’s store though, but it’s nice to get his story too.
But why didn’t he just leave it at that? Posting recordings of calls that don’t really make your case just seems to completely counteract any goodwill he might have generated with Apple for admitting what he did. But that’s easy for me to say as an outside observer with hindsight.
I think the broader implications of his recording Apple are being understated here - why shouldn’t he have recorded the call, after all? Apple have infinite reams of data about this developer at their disposal, which they have created through their own machinations; he, as a User of this service, has every right to turn the tables and ensure that Apple are delivering what they promise, and right now - having been a consumer of that service successfully for some years - he is being denied service for no just reason. This isn’t a just scenario; Dash users suffer, the developer doesn’t get his revenues, and the Service provider are too fat on cash to even give a damn. Not justice.
(The public sphere is being played, though, by all and sundry - this part is clear.)
I think, the more fuss is kicked up about this, the more profit will result from Dash sales in November when the account gets resolved/Popescu finds another distribution mechanism. Dash is pretty good (/me uses Zeal instead..)
why shouldn’t he have recorded the call, after all?
California requires two-party consent for recording phone calls. This part is a bit unclear to me since the recording seems to start half way through the call.
Apple have infinite reams of data about this developer at their disposal, which they have created through their own machinations
When you create an Apple ID, … we may collect a variety of information, including your name, mailing address, phone number, email address, contact preferences, and credit card information
Sounds like consent to me.
Well, why not? Telling the developer that they want to work with him and then preparing and spreading a press release behind his back slamming him while avoiding the fact that their actions caused this mess in the first place? … What goodwill?
See also http://www.osnews.com/story/29435/Dash_dev_claims_innocence_posts_calls_with_Apple_as_proof
What a spammy worthless news story. Why.is this here? How does it help us? What facts are in play?
While I don’t particularly value John Gruber’s perspective, I’m not sure why you think this is spammy. It’s the most complete summary of this story (which I certainly think is topical) I’ve seen anywhere.
Why is this story topical?
It’s news. It’s “He said, Apple said”. It’s going to be irrelevant inside of a few months, sooner if you judge relevance by how much something impacts how you do your job/projects.
I highly doubt that this is going to be the straw that finally pushes somebody not to develop for Apple. I highly doubt that this is going to be the story that helps us steer clear of walled gardens.
No, this is just some newsturbation, with the usual Gruber bootlicking thrown in for good measure. I feel the same way about the other submission here about it for what it’s worth.